Accounting, economics, and handball

Menu

Category Archives: 2020 Presidential Race

George Will is looking for a sober Democrat. We think it would be somebody he could disagree on most policy issues but still vote for in 2020. Showing the difficulty of George’s search, the 44th President was in the news recently:

The former U.S. President said during a talk at the Obama Foundation summit in Chicago that world leaders must solve problems around climate change, education, agriculture, among others, which according to him are not as hard to deal with as they may seem. As reported by the Daily Mail, [the 44th President] didn’t mention [The Donald] by name, but he did say that the world “badly needs remaking” and that “the reason we don’t do it is because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism, mommy issues.”

The joy of being a progressive is that you can attack The Donald and the press will say perhaps it was an attack on … well, it might be somebody else. So the immediate past president would have a hard time making the list of sober Democrats. George has identified John Delany, an entrepreneur and a Congressman from Maryland, as a reasonable choice for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020. He is, as George demonstrates, a progressive:

He checks various boxes that might mollify all but the most fastidious progressives: He likes early-childhood education, a carbon tax, a $15 minimum wage, and extending the Social Security tax to higher incomes. He dislikes the NRA, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, high interest rates on student loans, and “outrageous” drug prices. He would achieve “universal” health care by offering Medicaid for all, and for those who choose to opt for private programs, as he thinks most people would, there would be federal subsidies for those who need them.

The only point of possible agreement for us in that list is the carbon tax. We are willing to support a carbon tax at a reasonable level that replaces the gas tax. It is not much to keep a conservative interested but, according to George, he is pleasingly adult compared to the candidates from the Senate. George is right but it is an exceeding low bar to clear to be declared adult compared to Cory and Kamala. George says the Democrats could do much worse and probably will. We agree with him that it helps The Donald. We would like to see a sober Democrat leader again in our lifetime but it doesn’t look good. It is too bad because there is an opening for sober leaders.

We didn’t get the Never Trump folks in 2016 and we are even more perplexed about what they will do in 2020. We see 2020 as The Donald versus either Corey or Kamala. The Donald is not the first choice for MWG but we prefer him to any alternative that we see. We are close to certain that we won’t see HST or JFK from the Democrats. As we learned ex-post from the Post, JFK would no longer pass the character test.

I can’t stand [The Donald]. I didn’t vote for him and for the moment don’t plan to in 2020. But where else to turn? What we have learned in the last two weeks is that the left will crush anyone who does not support The Agenda. [Emphasis added]

We don’t get it. In November 2020 there will be another binary choice. Didn’t you learn from 2016? We think it will be The Donald versus Corey or Kamala with the latter as the most likely. Is there anyone there close to passing a character test? The writer seems to understand as the bold item indicates but then cannot draw the obvious conclusion that you can dislike, even despise The Donald and still vote for him because the alternative is worse. The Donald is not a conservative and has poor character but he does some conservative things. The other folks are the anthesis of conservative and will use their poor character to, as the writer says, enforce The Agenda. The Never Trump cadre is going to have an interesting 2020.

Update: Here is a scurrilous attack on Brett by Kamala’s organization. There is lots of nasty stuff on both sides but almost entirely the nasty stuff from what we might call serious folks comes from the left. Thus, the Never Trump folks have decisions to make or unmake.

Terri Sewell and Jim Kessler take to the WSJ to recommend A Better Minimum Wage. Their idea is to have regional minimum wage that is automatically adjusted for inflation. Terri and Jim assert:

These wage floors would rise with inflation so that congressional inaction can never again leave working families in the lurch. [and later]

The current minimum wage is too low and too hard to raise.

Starting with the second sentence the answer is no and no. There is no evidence the current minimum wage is too low. It is relatively easy to raise as it requires only a simple majority in each house of Congress and a presidential signature. The problem with raising the minimum wage is that it is a bad idea.

Sidebar: Do Terri and Jim really think their proposal will help some group like working families or the working poor? We are curious if they are guilty of bad thinking or cynical thinking. We see the potential advantages to a pro-government group for a higher minimum wage that include a greater demand for government and an ability to blame capitalism for poor outcomes. End Sidebar.

We are not sure why Terri and Jim tie it to working families. A higher minimum wage punishes workers whether they are in a family or not. The key to working is to start working. Folks develop capital by working and therefore rarely stay at the minimum wage for long. Raising the minimum wage is an effective method to stop workers from developing skills. Zero is always the real minimum wage. If you don’t work you get zero.

We also see no reason to punish folks more because they are already punished by high cost of living. Pay relates to productivity. Perhaps fast-food workers in Manhattan are more productive than Spokane or Selma but we would leave that up to the market.

Kevin Williamson’s wonderful recent article at NRO (more on it later) that covers a variety of items including risk aversion reminds us that the flippant answer that zero is the best minimum wage might not be correct and is likely a political loser. It might not be correct because of risk aversion. Many folks are reluctant to move, leave a job, or negotiate pay when a risk neutral individual would. A minimum wage greater than zero provides some value for some folks. The current one seems perfectly effective for that.

We are finishing up Jonah Goldberg’s new book. We recommend it and will give a fuller review later but the book is diminished by him continuing to fight the Never Trump battle. On p. 315 after he paints The Donald as a nationalist he says:

The traditional American conservative vision of limited governments and free markets has passed it sell-buy [sic] date. The choice is now progressivism or nationalism. [Emphasis added]

We will limit ourselves to two observations. First, if you don’t think The Donald is doing anything for limited government then Google “Trump reducing regulations” or some variant of it. Jonah is absolutely right that the Donald isn’t a conservative but he has been very effective at advancing some conservative ideas.

Second, the choice in 2016 general election was Hillary or The Donald. Jonah seems to have recognized that many of us are reluctant supporters of The Donald. The next open election will provide some other choice. We wish one of them wasn’t progressive but we are not optimistic.

Jonah needs to recognize that conservative can’t always agree and conservatives are a non-trivial part of the GOP but if the GOP only attracts conservatives it will almost always lose national elections. Jonah supported eight years of Hillary because it would damage the brand and we might do better in 2024. The evidence might change in the next six years but so far he is way wrong.

Charles Blahous, a former public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, has a WSJ update on the financial position of these entitlements. The title is The Social Security Trust Fund Goes Bust. He says:

The downward spirals have accelerated. The combined Social Security trust funds—one for disability, one for retirement—as well as Medicare’s hospital-insurance trust fund, will begin eating into their reserves this year, according to reports released this week by the programs’ trustees.

It seems to us like an attempt to use the most recent data to galvanize the people to spur the Congress and the President into action. It really should not be necessary and if the data was slightly more favorable it should not change the situation. Charles gives us the important message near the end:

The annual press focus on the projected insolvency dates has always been somewhat misplaced. What’s really important is the magnitude of the shortfalls and the difficulty of correcting them, which grows every year.

In other words, retirees – and future retirees – would lose nearly a quarter of their benefits. But that is not insolvency, and solutions are readily available to avoid that unacceptable outcome.

Here is an experiment. Try paying 77% of your bills. Are you insolvent? Affirmative. The outcome of insolvency depends on your creditors. And if you have no chance, as with entitlements, of ever paying more than 77% then you are absolutely insolvent. The only question is whether it will be solved before or after bankruptcy court. Then Mark gives us a summary of the options:

Conservatives favor benefit cuts via higher retirement ages, more means-testing and a less generous annual cost-of-living adjustment. Progressives advocate gradually increasing payroll taxes and lifting the cap on taxable benefits. Considering that middle-class households depend mainly on Social Security for support in retirement, it would be wiser to follow the progressive agenda.

The first and second sentences need a close reading to reveal the bias. We might convert Mark’s first two sentences into:

Conservatives favor solutions like means testing, more accurate cost-of-living adjustments, higher payments to lower classes, and higher retirement ages. Progressive advocate higher taxes through increasing tax rates and the amounts subject to Social Security taxation. Many conservatives and progressives seem to support ignoring the problem.

The last sentence in our quote of Mark is very curious. Does it mean that the lower class doesn’t depend on Social Security (SS) for retirement? We would like to see that data. Our priors are that lower classes rely most heavily on SS of any class. We, along with many conservatives, would support an increase in SS payments to them. Middle class depends on SS between the upper and lower, and the upper class depends the least on SS. As we see it, the wiser course is the conservative agenda of means testing because it will reduce the payments to the upper class that is less likely to need it.

Fixing Social Security today is relatively easy because there are many politically viable solutions. None of these solutions have happened because of the political opportunity in opposing any changes. Fixing Medicare is going to be much harder because of the difficulty in creating a market for medical services. We know we are not going to start today but let’s start soon for the kids and grandkids because, as Charles says, it gets harder to fix every day. Start with SS.

George Will has come out again in support of a balanced budget amendment (BBA). In fact, George thinks it should be job one for 2018:

We will discover that point [when debt influences growth] the hard way, unless Congress promptly sends to the states for prompt ratification a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets. [Emphasis added]

He also has a explicit suggestion from Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane on what it should be. Hubbard and Kane’s proposal

would limit each year’s total spending to the median annual revenue of the previous seven years, allowing temporary deficits to be authorized in emergencies by congressional supermajorities.

We have lived under balanced budgets at the state level and found them particularly vexing because most spending is committed when the budget shortfall shows up and then you must cut where available. It is not a system that leads to good decisions. In addition, or perhaps related to the first problem, there are accounting problems. In the states an obvious problem is pensions. The WSJ highlights New Jersey recently. New Jersey has a new governor, Democrat Phil Murphy.

As he takes office later this month, Mr. Murphy must confront the state’s biggest problem—a pension system that is about $90 billion short of what it needs to pay future benefits.

The federal government’s obvious accounting problem is entitlements.

We like the idea of a BBA but the problem of writing the amendment, bad budgeting decisions, and the accounting problem lead us to oppose a BBA. The federal budget is such a disaster, however, we are willing to consider that the current circumstances are worse than a BBA.

Let’s assume that the BBA George suggests has passed by June 2018 and there are no supermajorities to substantially raise taxes. We are already in fiscal 2018 so fiscal 2019 would be the first year it applies to. FY 2019 has expected spending of $3.93 trillion. The spending limit is trickier because it would seem reasonable to limit to actual data. If so the limit would be $2.775 trillion. If we include estimated years then the limit would be $3.021 trillion. So there would be a need for cuts and tax increases from somewhere between just under a trillion dollars to $1.2 trillion.

Sidebar: We don’t see a solution in writing the amendment by making it effective in say, 2030. Each party is aware of the problem. There is little interest in fixing the problem as the last two presidential elections have shown. End sidebar.

Neither party would want to pass such rule. Spending GOP capital on a failure is a bad idea when they might do something useful in 2018. We know that politicians always wimp out when the “out” years come. That is they promise to make cuts later and never do. Reforming entitlements gets harder every year. We expect a disaster but see the BBA as an even bigger disaster. Sorry George.

Maybe you saw Election Day 2016 as that strict binary choice. But we’re past Election Day. It’s time to stop measuring Trump merely as an alternative to Hillary and to start measuring him on his own merits. [Emphasis added]

Maybe? The 2016 presidential election was a binary choice. It still is.

Sidebar: Has Conrad ever written something that is not a polemic? We enjoy him but he can’t help recycle the same material: Nixon and FDR were great presidents and the US justice system. This time Conrad says the Never Trump group has defected from being conservative Republicans. It is a wonderful turn of phrase designed to infuriate his friends. End Sidebar.

Moreover, comparisons, this time not binary, are how we measure presidents. Reagan isn’t a great president because he batted 1.000. He didn’t and no president is anywhere close to that mark. Instead we compare presidents. We need to criticize The Donald when appropriate but recognize the road ahead.

The 2020 presidential race is not yet a binary choice. If The Donald runs for the GOP next time is there anyone in the current crop of Democrats that you prefer? We are not suggesting that you become a shill for The Donald but that you remember that there will be binary choices in the future. So, yes, The Donald is still the [superior] alternative to Herself.